Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

The Tomahawk Block IV missile is the latest variant in a steady progression of capability; incorporating mission planning, navigation and guidance, and command and control upgrades designed to improve weapon responsiveness and target flexibility. Launching from ranges out to 1,000 miles and armed with a 1,000-pound warhead, the Block IV is the Navy’s “kick down the door” weapon, attacking well defended high-value land targets.

Modernization of several key missile components is necessary in order to leverage Tomahawk’s inherent features, and effectively engage ships at sea. Extended range provides the shooter an operational sanctuary, but also requires over the horizon support through secure and effective communication links. The fact that combatants can move at up to 30 knots drives the need for onboard sensors to effectively “close the deal” against the intended target.

The complex operational environment that is the maritime battle space requires the ability to distinguish between warships and non-combatants, and effectively operate in the midst of sophisticated countermeasures. Thus the need for enhancements in system communication and data links, the addition of an advanced electronics system, and the incorporation of a terminal guidance seeker.

Block IV’s current capability as a “net enabled weapon” features a two-way satellite data link that allows the controller to switch targets during flight to pre-programmed alternate targets or redirect to a new objective. Data link modernization could be achieved through drop in replacement of the current communication links, or using other compatible locations on the missile (the size of the weapon provides ample real estate). High TRL (a level of DOD recognized level of technical maturity) spread spectrum waveforms are available to provide improved anti-jam and low probability of intercept performance.

Other communication modernization features offer the ability to support simultaneous over the horizon and local network communications for weapon control. Those improvements will also enable Block IV MOD to take advantage of significant intelligence surveillance reconnaissance and targeting (ISR&T) investment the Navy has made in platforms (i.e., the MQ-4B Triton and P-8A Poseidon), sensors and communication links.

By leveraging improvements in processing power and advanced sensor technologies, there are alternative and fairly mature terminal guidance seeker solutions available for incorporation in the weapon. Whether imaging infrared, or active millimeter wave radar, they all offer a degree of demonstrated capability against moving targets at sea. All-weather capability, automatic target recognition, simultaneously prosecution of multiple targets, and future growth potential are other features that could be incorporated into the terminal guidance capability, depending on cost and timeline requirements.

An advanced electronics system passively detecting an adversary’s electromagnetic radiations can be a critical enabler for hitting the intended objective. It can provide a correlating source of information for target identification. That may range from the initial detection of a hostile surface action group (SAG) to additional ship type information. In addition, the advanced electronics system may provide supporting target information via electromagnetic emissions in the midst of an adversary’s active countermeasures.

In January of this year, the Navy successfully demonstrated the capability of the Block IV missile striking a moving maritime target. Although achieved in the context of a controlled event, it highlighted the “current capabilities of Tomahawk as a netted weapon . . .” and provides a glimpse of what “could be” with Block IV MOD in the ASuW mission.

He added that the Indian Navy has achieved 90% indigenisation in the float segment and 60% and 30% in the propulsion and weapon segments

I wonder what indiginous propulsion we use to get that 60 % figure , Unless the one lic built by Kirloskar and LM2500 series engine we assemble is classified as Indigenisation ........there is practically no Indian Designed and Built propulsion we make here that we use on our ships , Either they are imported like that of Ukrainan one on D class ships or Lic Built western one by Kirloskar/HAL etc

Business Standard has learnt that the navy has officially informed the Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (the DRDO laboratory that developed the Kaveri) that naval warships will needs 40 Kaveri Marine Gas Turbines (KMGTs) over the next 15 years.

I wonder what indiginous propulsion we use to get that 60 % figure , Unless the one lic built by Kirloskar and LM2500 series engine we assemble is classified as Indigenisation ........there is practically no Indian Designed and Built propulsion we make here that we use on our ships , Either they are imported like that of Ukrainan one on D class ships or Lic Built western one by Kirloskar/HAL etc

Can the GTRE deliver? That is the billion $ Q! We've herd the boast about a marine Kaveri for over a decade now. The GTREE needs to be abolished and a new national Central Engine Research and Dev. Establishment taking its place,which will design and develop engines for all requirements,for aviation,land and maritime uses.

Incidentally,the wheels are moving fast for the LHPD req.,with the vessels meant to be 30K t. This would mean a req. for a strong helo req. why L&T's JC design offer may come up trumps.

Business Standard has learnt that the navy has officially informed the Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (the DRDO laboratory that developed the Kaveri) that naval warships will needs 40 Kaveri Marine Gas Turbines (KMGTs) over the next 15 years.

I dont think anything came of this other than tons of media statements Cant see how it can be counted in existing propulsion when it never even left the lab

there are certain industrial and marine power use (offshore oil rigs) where gas turbines may be in use in lieu of diesel gensets. i know HAL marine gas turbine division near LRDE services some of these engines (rolls royce?). kaveri if they were serious could also have been positioned in that niche to build hours, reliability, data .... but it takes a lot to move a science project off the lab into the field and productionize. in the absence of a mandate to make the kaveri widely used its tough to take this last and biggest step.

also its very hard to cover the last 10% of any new product - from a "it usually works but short by 5%" to "almost zero defect and ready for widespread customer use" .... we can see it in any new product dev

Drone enthusiast 'amazed' as he lands device on deck of £3bn HMS Elizabeth without being detectedPictured: Britain's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen ElizabethHarry Yorke 12 AUGUST 2017 • 9:15AMIt is a £3bn state-of-the-art investment, commissioned to reassert Britain’s supremacy on the high seas.But this week the Royal Navy was left blushing after it emerged that an amateur enthusiast managed to land a £300 drone on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth - without anyone raising the alarm.

According to local media reports in Scotland, the drone user managed to fly the drone past armed patrol boats before landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

The pilot, who is yet to be named, told reporters this week that he had been “amazed” how easy it had been to carry out the stunt.

“I was amazed that I was able to land on the aircraft carrier for two reasons, the first being that there was no one about to prevent it from landing although were security police around in small boats who were waving at the drone,” he said.

“The second reason was more technical. I received a high wind warning as I was videoing up and down the flight deck and my control system advised me to land.”

He added that when attempted to discuss his concerns about security with crew members, he returned to find a “ghost ship”.“There was absolutely no-one around when I landed, it was like a ghost ship,” he continued.

“After I posted the picture taken from the flight deck I got some flak from other drone users who were saying ‘You are going to make a lot of people unhappy’. I thought the only law I had broken was that I flew over a vessel I didn’t have control over.

“I was a bit concerned so I drove round to Invergordon and spoke to the port security and explained that I wanted to speak to someone from the ship such as the duty watch or the captain about what I had done.

“I was only able to speak to some heavily armed police, I think from the MoD, and they said there was no-one available on the carrier as they were at dinner ashore.”

“No-one seemed too concerned, but the officer I spoke to said he would pass it up the chain of command. I was fascinated by the Queen Elizabeth and wanted to have a crack at filming her. I wasn’t out to get anyone in trouble. What’s done is done, and I can’t undo the images I shot.

“I think if the MoD were in any way bothered by this then these videos and stills would not have been allowed to see the light of day.”

Whilst the anonymous drone pilot appeared relaxed about his exploits, the disclosure has prompted concern among military and security experts.

Speaking to The Daily Mail, Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, said it was worrying because terrorist groups such as Islamic State had already used drones in the Middle East to launch bombs.

He said: “Daesh [Islamic State] are already using drones to deliver bombs in Syria, so I think it is something we need to take very seriously.

“The fact drones can reach it is a worry. The Queen Elizabeth is doing some work with helicopters and if a drone hits a helicopter that could be very dangerous.

“We need to have harsher punishments if you fly a drone into a carrier's air space. There's a real risk from drones and [it's] something we need to take very seriously.”

Commenting, an MoD spokesperson said: “We take the security of HMS Queen Elizabeth very seriously. This incident has been reported to Police Scotland, an investigation is underway and we stepped up our security measures in light of it."

This is increasingly a problem in civilian airspace where you can't deploy your active sensors and where there are no clear cut instructions. In open waters you will likely take it down unless it poses no significant danger to the vessel or through its other activities. See THIS and THIS.

While the Indian Navy badly needs nuclear submarines to bolster its strength underwater as well as replace ailing fleet, it is not finding any builders to take up the project. It should be recalled that the Union government announced that six nuclear submarines would be built, following clearance given by the Cabinet committee on security.

The project was estimated to cost Rs 50,000 crore and would have given a boost to the ailing shipyard. The submarines were to be designed by navy’s Directorate of Naval Design. Even the state-owned Hindustan Shipyard said that it will not build nuclear submarine in its yard. “We will not build any nuclear submarine for the Indian Navy,” said chairman and managing director of Hindustan Shipyard Limited Rear Admiral (retired) LV Sharatbabu.

He refused to elaborate further. Even Reliance Defence and Engineering is not coming forward to develop its shipyard at Rambilli village in the district, though the company had signed a MoU with the state government during partnership summit here in 2016.It should be noted that the Reliance Defence and Engineering has proposed to build nuclear submarines and much needed aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy in association with Russian companies.

“They are yet to come forward to take up the project. The government has already issued a GO paving the way for allotment of land,” said general manager of District Industries Centre A Ramalingewara Rao.Indian Navy has 13 conventional submarines and two nuclear powered submarines-INS Chakra taken on lease from Russia in 2012 and INS Arihant which was de-commissioned quietly in October last year.

Defence sources said half of the conventional submarines are aged and ready for medium refit. Indian Navy badly needs more submarines to counter the presence of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean. Chinese submarines came close to Indian waters six times during the last few years.

While the Indian Navy badly needs nuclear submarines to bolster its strength underwater as well as replace ailing fleet, it is not finding any builders to take up the project. It should be recalled that the Union government announced that six nuclear submarines would be built, following clearance given by the Cabinet committee on security.

The project was estimated to cost Rs 50,000 crore and would have given a boost to the ailing shipyard. The submarines were to be designed by navy’s Directorate of Naval Design. [u]Even the state-owned Hindustan Shipyard said that it will not build nuclear submarine in its yard. “We will not build any nuclear submarine for the Indian Navy,” said chairman and managing director of Hindustan Shipyard Limited Rear Admiral (retired) LV Sharatbabu.

He refused to elaborate further. Even Reliance Defence and Engineering is not coming forward to develop its shipyard at Rambilli village in the district, though the company had signed a MoU with the state government during partnership summit here in 2016.It should be noted that the Reliance Defence and Engineering has proposed to build nuclear submarines and much needed aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy in

Somehow feel its only half the story. Wonder what the actual thing is since hard to believe no one would takeup such a lucrative offer with confirmed 6 orders

No takers for construction of India’s Next Generation of Nuclear Submarines

Somehow feel its only half the story. Wonder what the actual thing is since hard to believe no one would takeup such a lucrative offer with confirmed 6 orders

So many possibilities- capability- willingness to invest in hiring the right talent and procuring the needed machinery if above is lacking- risk/reward tradeoff- penalty clauses- schedules, and government's newfound strictness- longer term commitment- other business opportunities- questions about whether design is good & implementable- working arrangement between IN, design bureau and vendor(s)- quality certification & signoff

This is a hugely complex project, and it's not like bidding for a railway electrification or road construction contract.

The Kattupalli yard started building ships in 2012. But, by then, the global shipbuilding industry had plumbed the depths after the collapse of the Lehman Brothers and the financial meltdown that ensued.

It has so far built—or is in the process of building—ships for offshore oil exploration, interceptor boats and offshore patrol vessels for the coast guard and a floating dock for the navy.

When commercial ship orders dried up following the global financial crisis, L&T struggled. But soon local shipyards got a lifeline from the government.

In 2011, the government ordered a series of offshore patrol vessels, fast patrol vessels and interceptor boats to strengthen coastal security after 10 gunmen entered Mumbai by the sea route on 26 November 2008, and killed at least 166 people and injured nearly 300 in one of India’s worst terror attacks.

Producing interceptor boats and offshore support vessels will not give L&T the kind of returns on the money it invested, according to the Chennai-based shipbuilding expert cited above.

But defence contracts are set to get bigger and pricier over time as the government modernizes an ageing naval fleet. This includes making nuclear-powered submarines and stealth warships as part of the Make in India programme.

In March, the government approved a plan to build six submarines locally at an estimated cost of Rs.50,000 crore. L&T is a strong contender for the deal.

“It’s (interceptor boats and offshore support vessels) a consolation prize for them until the submarine orders mature. Their main focus in putting up the Kattupalli yard was to capture a larger pie of the defence orders. Because, having been involved in the Arihant submarine project, they knew that the Indian Navy will not stop at one, and automatically more orders would follow,” he said.

L&T is among the four private local shipbuilders that have a permit from the government to build warships. But the playing field will get bigger if the government accepts the prescriptions of a panel led by former home secretary Dhirender Singh on defence purchases.

One of the suggestions is that private firms eyeing defence co-ntracts under the Make in India programme should have a net worth of at least 40% of the estimated development and engineering costs of projects and a credit rating of Crisil/ICRA B++.

Additionally, companies seeking to become strategic partners of the navy for constructing warships costing over Rs.10,000 crore should not be in the middle of corporate debt restructuring.

That could put yards such as ABG Shipyard Ltd, Bharati Shipyard Ltd, Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. Ltd out of the reckoning.

Typically, it will take anywhere between 6-8 years for a new yard of the scale and size of Kattupalli to break even. “The cost of funds is what cripples a yard. If you have a healthy order book, you can play around with the finance and lower the financing costs,” the Chennai-based expert said.

Somehow feel its only half the story. Wonder what the actual thing is since hard to believe no one would takeup such a lucrative offer with confirmed 6 orders

This might well be a case of a single vendor situation.Now that L&T has built the Arihant Class subs as a pilot project under a special ATV program and the program is nearing completion, and it is time for the next batch or gen of subs to be built, the Babooze of the Min of Def are stepping in with their rules and clauses and sub & sub sub clauses.

They've probably decreed that giving the contract to L&T constitutes a single vendor situation - they get a chance to delay the project, in the hopes that some lubrication will land at their table

This might well be what is going on - thus the cry about, no vendor willing to build N subs.

Singha wrote:In has floated to a tender to replace the urans . Around 20 ships and 240 missiles

Now is the time to use uran as a test vehicle of the c3i and sensors of a desi next gen er asm of thawk lrasm mould

Why doesnt DRDO build a Uran class missile to replace it , we have yet to develop a single Anti-Ship subsonic missile in 200-300 km range similar to exocet uran or harpoon not every IN ships needs brahmos or can carry one .....Why IN keep floating tender eternally to replace such bread and butter stuff

yes its high time we built 2 ASM. a small exocet sized one with 150km range and IIR+radar seeker for smaller ships (turbojet engine) and a larger LRASM sized one with 500km range with mid course updates and other boo boo stuff (like turbofan engine).

If HSL are reluctant to build SSNs,much easier than SSBNs,then they must be struggling with the Arihant class whose details are most heavily classified esp. costs.No one in the public domain knows how much each sub is costing us and how much we've invested over the past decades. Therefore,costs of the proposed SSNs must be the stumbling block,few wanting to stick their necks out costwise and pay a heavy penalty later,as much tech has to be developed.

There was a report last yr. that Russia was keen to assist us in the SSN programme,which could be clubbed with the extra Akula/s.From earlier inspections,Rubin supposedly picked the L&T's Madras/K'palli facility as the best for building subs. Having built the hulls for the ATV and whatever other eqpt .involved ,L&T would be the best outfit to entrust the prog. to. IN other reports,Russia appears to be changing philosophy and will build smaller specialised types of subs in the future instead of large Yasen class multi-role subs,v.expensive and time-consuming to build too. If our SSNs are meant to primarily be HUK boats,with land attack secondary,Then silence,speed,sonar arrays,and new ASW weapon systems /missiles/rocket torpedoes need to be developed or acquired.The Q of single-hull or double-hull arises. Do we have the capability of production of the special steel allowing the SSN to dive to around 600M? Perhaps there being many unanswered Qs about the design of the sub,still "floating",yards are reluctant to commit themselves.

If we are going to face delays with this most vital programme,then there is little alternative but to increase the number of Akulas on lease until we start completing our desi SSNs.

San is much more difficult. Watch taken documentary, and US ssn submariner accounts. How they are continuously practising fast-maneuvering while being stealthy , while ssn is built just operate stealthily without much fast and violent maneuvering.

Somehow feel its only half the story. Wonder what the actual thing is since hard to believe no one would takeup such a lucrative offer with confirmed 6 orders

Defence orders arnt exactly "Lucrative" from the get go.

If these Facilities have never constructed such vessels they will first have to spend CAPEX upgrading their infrastructure then BID to win the order. No guarantee. Handling Nuclear equipment is a whole new ball game. HR capability will also need to be built up.

After winning - they will have to cough up (a sizable % of the order value) a Bank Guarantee that will lie with MOD at 4% interest.

MOD will release money based on milestones (Assuming they release on time) and not according to Opex being incurred by the producer. i.e Negative cashflows here again have to be funded through WC financing.

All in all ALOT of money gets sunk. L&Ts of the world have the Balance sheet and Financing (internal NBFC) to help turn these projects into viable profitiable exercises. Maynot be the case for all contractors.

The Yasen,is even larger than the Akula-2/3,multi-role,more missions,more sophistication,complexity,etc. It would be easier to use a modular sub design approach,with two variants.In surface combatants,similar hulls have been used for diff. purposes such as the Tarantula missile corvette,same hull as the Pauk/Abhay class ASW corvette.An SSGN config would however require more missile silos and perhaps a reduced torpedo load.Ideally for the IN,an SSN of around 6000+t should suffice,depending upon reactor size/power and the top UW speed reqd. Given the task of intel gathering/spl forces missions too,the sub could also accommodate a spl. forces pod and feature UUVs,essential for future UW ops.This could ncrease the size to approx. 8000t.

Philip wrote:If HSL are reluctant to build SSNs,much easier than SSBNs,then they must be struggling with the Arihant class whose details are most heavily classified esp. costs.No one in the public domain knows how much each sub is costing us and how much we've invested over the past decades. Therefore,costs of the proposed SSNs must be the stumbling block,few wanting to stick their necks out costwise and pay a heavy penalty later,as much tech has to be developed.

Please verify before posting, Arihant class SSBN are built at Shipbuilding Centre of Indian Navy and not by HSL.

Why would the F-18 or Rafale need to showcase this? Companies generally do not go into a self funded demonstration program until they have a pretty solid competitive program ahead of them. So far, neither Boeing or Dassault have had to offer something for STOBAR and the INs acquisition program is just getting started. You aren't going to get anything beyond M&S until there is a serious competitive acquisition program. On the F-35 program, the brits paid and leased out facility at Pax River, created the infrastructure so that they could clear the envelope for their aircraft carrier, so far a unique UK requirement.

brar, that is true...but the IN also operates ski jump carriers. And if the F-35B can take off with a meaningful load from a ski jump carrier, EMALS becomes a moot point for the IN. Why do you need an expensive & complex system like EMALS when a ski jump can do the trick?

But i will concede that the F-35B is not on offer or taking part in the IN's fighter competition. So that is also a moot point